The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doomBy SIMON CALDWELL - More by this author » Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.

"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace".

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations.

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken."

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said.

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet.

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations.

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists.

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion.

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

Sorry if I have been too polemical in my posts in the past. Please don't take what I have to say here as a personal attack on you.

IMHO, this is quite an irresponsible position for the Pope to take, although I agree with him that some voices in the environmental movement are too quick to dismiss the importance of human beings in the natural order of things, and that costs for combatting global warming should be justly distributed.

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change.

True.

Quote

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon.

Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all. There is no debate. Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences. It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all. We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove. But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate. Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?

"In the past few years, a firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming. This issue has pitted science against spin, with inflammatory words from both sides. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work on global warming, only served to heighten the rhetoric on both sides of the debate.

How could scientific fact, which many believe could determine the very future of the planet, become a political battleground, left versus right, environmentalist versus climate change sceptic?"

I highly recommend watching the video given on this link, if you have the time. It's very eye-opening and thought provoking.

Quote

Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right.

Which critics, besides the Vatican? A "burgeoning industry?" I know that some of these environmental groups can be shrill, and it's not to their advantage sometimes, but a "burgeoning industry"? Yeah, right. Just like Exxon Mobil or General Motors. Give me a break.

Quote

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius.

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced.

Very irresponsible and ignorant remarks indeed, IMHO. Since when are Cardinals ecological experts?

About time we had somebody speaking sensibly on this topic. It's not like the world's climate isn't constantly changing. I agree we ought not trash the planet but I don't seriously think a changing climate in itself is a major problem. People, plants and animals will either adapt adequately, move, or die. Agreeably the last isn't good but it has what has always happened at least from Noah's time onwards is it not?

Logged

...because I was not with you when the Lord came aforetime....because I am blind and yet I see.

I'm going to believe the word of a close associate who studies Global Warming: humans are part of the problem, but the major engine is cyclical climate change. I would agree that much science is disregarded out of alarmism; OTOH, people use this fact to disregard the impact that humans do indeed have on climate change.

Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all. There is no debate. Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences. It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all. We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove. But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate. Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?

"In the past few years, a firestorm has engulfed the debate about global warming. This issue has pitted science against spin, with inflammatory words from both sides. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s recent Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his work on global warming, only served to heighten the rhetoric on both sides of the debate.

Well, those who claim there is no global warming seem to have blinders. But stating that it is primarily human-caused seems to disregard other evidence, including other Solar-System temperature changes (which reinforce the idea that the Sun does not produce a constant energy emission, but that it instead varies), and the fact that the Earth has within the last few million years gone through a warming period at least as warm as this one, and probably warmer. Plus, not many people can predict what Global Warming will do to the world's environment with any certainty - it has not been the cause of increased Tornadic reports, and has not been the cause of the recent surge in hurricane activity and strength.

What I found telling was that (according to my associate, who is a meteorologist), (a) Mr. Gore, while producing a very good movie - that my friend called a must see - had mistakes in his presentation when speaking about climate & weather (the only aspects that my friend has the ability to critique), and (b) the folks behind the alarmist movie The Day After Tomorrow disregarded the consultation of the National Weather Service (which they sought) and instead portrayed events against the advice of trained meteorologists who study Global Warming.

How is counseling others to think through these issues with cool heads and a balanced perspective irresponsible?

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story." Well, there aren't two sides to this story. Global warming is happening. The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it. Could these models be wrong? Of course they could. They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with. Things could turn out quite differently. It just doesn't look like they will at all. The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering". As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering.

the Earth has within the last few million years gone through a warming period at least as warm as this one, and probably warmer.

Of course it has. But were there big coastal cities at the time? Were there 6 billion people on the face of the earth who had to deal with it? And how rapidly did the warming happen in the other warming periods?

Quote

Plus, not many people can predict what Global Warming will do to the world's environment with any certainty

See my post above this one.

Quote

- it has not been the cause of increased Tornadic reports, and has not been the cause of the recent surge in hurricane activity and strength.

We simply have no scientific way of verifying whether global warming is or is not behind recent changes of this kind.

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story." Well, there aren't two sides to this story. Global warming is happening. The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it. Could these models be wrong? Of course they could. They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with. Things could turn out quite differently. It just doesn't look like they will at all. The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering". As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering.

I do not doubt that global warming IS occurring; how much of this is caused by humans, though, I don't think is as clear as you would like to think it is. I generally do prefer, also, to approach EVERYTHING with a cool head unswayed by passion and to examine ALL sides of every issue. Has "big oil" drilled this into me? I don't think so, for this is just the way I am, and I couldn't care less what "big oil" has to say about anything. It's consistent with my personality to gravitate toward Pope Benedict's counsel on global warming and think it the most responsible thing he could say.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

This is the most irresponsible part of his statement, if he really said this. The polar ice cap is receeding now at an incredible rate. It's not a theory. It's fact. Disasterous outcomes have been modelled by the mainstream scientific community, not by philosophy majors who spend their evenings canvassing for Greenpeace. The Pope is "don't worry be happy" mongering.

I do not doubt that global warming IS occurring; how much of this is caused by humans, though, I don't think is as clear as you would like to think it is.

I have already said that there is a small component of the scientific community that doesn't think it is caused so much by humans as may have been thought. I wouldn't "like to think" anything. Although I am rusty on a lot of ecological matters since I don't deal directly in my work with these issues anymore, I do try to look at new evidence when I can and will consider any reasonable hypothesis.

This is the most irresponsible part of his statement, if he really said this. The polar ice cap is receeding now at an incredible rate. It's not a theory. It's fact. Disasterous outcomes have been modelled by the mainstream scientific community, not by philosophy majors who spend their evenings canvassing for Greenpeace. The Pope is "don't worry be happy" mongering.

Isn't it telling that most of the tabloid Daily Mail's article is its own commentary on Benedict's words and not Benedict's actual quotes? I think we should withhold judgment until he actually delivers this address.

Actually, the full text is out. Here's the section on the environment:

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging countries are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

I just noticed that you didn't provide a link to the article you quoted, which would be very helpful. I see quite clearly that you copied the name of the author with the text, so I don't see that you failed to give proper credit to the author, but a link to the online news medium that published this would be even better. Just post the link on this thread, and one of the moderators will append it to your OP for you. Thank you in advance for providing this for us.

The funny thing is, he said nothing of the sort. The Daily Mail is controversy-mongering, as usual. Honestly, I'm so glad I have sworn off the secular media.

Thank you for your posts! He didn't remotely say what the Mail claims, did he? (I didn't know that the article was from that paper.) Unbelievable! Having briefly read over his statement, it all looks perfectly sensible to me.

Do you happen to know if the Australian cardinal in question actually said the outrageous statements that are attributed to him?

Thank you for your posts! He didn't remotely say what the Mail claims, did he? (I didn't know that the article was from that paper.) Unbelievable! Having briefly read over his statement, it all looks perfectly sensible to me.

You're welcome.

Unfortunately, other people will read that shoddy piece of journalism and now think that the Pope is in league with Big Oil and is sending his albino monk minions around the world to sabotage the fight against global warming.

Hmmm. Well, at least the Mail quoted something correctly from this source. Who knows if the cardinal actually said the things attributed to him, though. I mean, if what you say is true, that even the New York Times misrepresents papal statements, who can you trust?

What are we going to do about Mars? There are no nasty humans breathing CO2 or plants. Of course let's be sensible stewards of our planet (the Martians can look after themselves) but don't let us fall dupes to the Global theory which puts us closer to captivity by the great problem-solver. The earth doth wax old as doth a garment. The fallen world as we know it may disappear, but our souls have another kingdom.

That's just it: the American (and Italian?) public has been sold a bill of goods by big oil that says that "we have to consider all sides of the problem", and parts of the media have bought it too, because journalists are trained to always try to "give both sides of the story." Well, there aren't two sides to this story. Global warming is happening. The predictions that we are capable of making about the outcome in a number of years look quite grim for much of the planet, although not all of it. Could these models be wrong? Of course they could. They are extrapolations concerning something that we have never had to deal with. Things could turn out quite differently. It just doesn't look like they will at all. The Pope doesn't know what he is talking about when he condemns the environmental movement for "fear mongering". As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is "chill out, there's nothing to worry about" mongering.

One needs to ask himself: "If Global warming causes oceans to rise why are so many Global Warming advocates buying property on beaches and shore lines around the world??

Scientific opposition to the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is very small, unless you count the big oil lobby in the US, who have been doing a great job convincing the American public that there is an actual debate in the scientific community over whether or not global warming is even happening at all. There is no debate. Even the tiny group of scientists who claim that global warming is not being caused by humans do not deny that it is happening and may well have big consequences. It's true that we really don't know all the variables at all. We don't know what will happen in the end, when the push comes to shove. But there's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening at quite a rapid rate. Do we really want to just sit back and dismiss the scientific evidence as being "alarmist"?

Why would you think that a news item by CBS is any more reliable than the sources used by His Holiness as the basis for his caution regarding the climate change prophets of doom?

FWIW my husband works with literally dozens of scientists whose specialty is weather, geology, archeology and rocket science. These people are PhDs and college professors. Highly educated and trained members of the "scientific community" and their perception is that there is no global consensus on climate change within the "scientific community." In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views. In fact one even went to court to get his name removed from the study. Oh and the members of the IPCC are not all scientists. They are political appointees. Not even a solid representative sample of the scientific community let alone a consensus.

These are not rich men who work for the oil industry.

The idea that there is a global consensus that all climatologist, meteorologists and other scientists agree upon is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda. The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

There isn't even a solid consensus that there is a significant global warming happening, let alone what it is caused by or how to "fix it" (or even if it can be fixed).

Why would you think that a news item by CBS is any more reliable than the sources used by His Holiness as the basis for his caution regarding the climate change prophets of doom?

FWIW my husband works with literally dozens of scientists whose specialty is weather, geology, archeology and rocket science. These people are PhDs and college professors. Highly educated and trained members of the "scientific community" and their perception is that there is no global consensus on climate change within the "scientific community." In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views. In fact one even went to court to get his name removed from the study. Oh and the members of the IPCC are not all scientists. They are political appointees. Not even a solid representative sample of the scientific community let alone a consensus.

These are not rich men who work for the oil industry.

The idea that there is a global consensus that all climatologist, meteorologists and other scientists agree upon is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda. The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

There isn't even a solid consensus that there is a significant global warming happening, let alone what it is caused by or how to "fix it" (or even if it can be fixed).

Thanks Carole. I am not surprised by what you have shared with us. I just read an article today stating a magma hot spot may be the cause of the ice melting rapidly in Greenland

In regard to Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth, an article from USA Today stated only 19 scientists found this movie accurate. Many of the 100 contacted either were skeptical of the movie's claims or they hadn't even bothered to see the movie or read his book which leads me to believe they do not consider his work to be worthy of their time as scientists.And this article tried to put a positive spin on the movie.

“The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.”

The articles one reads in the paper lately have taken on a panicked tone which leads me to believe much of what we are being told are exagerations and hype.

....is a myth promoted by those with a "Green" agenda. The idea that any scientist that doesn't agree with the global warming scare-mongering is "on the take" from oil companies or car companies is nothing short of libel.

If you had bothered to read all of my posts, you would have seen that I acknowledge that there is a small community of climate scientists who think that global warming is not being caused in the main by people, and there is also a very small group who think that it is not necessarily happening.

Libel? I guess you should sue the CBC then. Or maybe TIME magazine, or other reliable media outlets (The Daily Mail would therefore be one that was excluded) who insist that global warming is happening. The evidence from the CBC documentary is really quite compelling, in terms of pointing to the contention that lobbyists working for big oil on this issue have dubious credentials and used to work as lobbyists for big tobacco.

Given that the disciplines you're listing are ones used in climatology (and that you deliberately omitted Carole's reference to climatologists), would you care to tell us what your point is?

I suppose archaeologists and rocket scientists might work in concert with other scientists in an interdisciplinary way to help support the work of disciplines that are more concerned with climate change, but in and of themselves, these disciplines are not areas directly connected with climate change. Even meteorology is not directly linked with the study of long-range changes in climate. IMHO,the fact that someone is a meteorologist would not automatically make them an expert, or even particularly knowledgable, in the area of long-range climate projection.

My point should be self-evident. I didn't know that archaeologists and rocket scientists worked in climate science, as you claim. That's new to me.

Climatic conditions are very important within archeology. Even slight variations can dramatically alter a society - hence there are archaeologists that do in fact specialize in climate related issues. I also personally know several academics in the social sciences that specialize in environmental issues. It looks like an interdisciplinary field to me.

In fact two of the men that my husband knows are former members of the IPCC and they removed themselves from the panel because of blatant political wrangling and the issuance of an opinion which does not reflect their views.

Well, that's two men out of the dozens that your husband works with. What disciplines do they work in? Their defection could be significant. On the other hand, there is always going to be political wrangling when people get together. Or at least what is perceived as being such.

Well, that's two men out of the dozens that your husband works with. What disciplines do they work in? Their defection could be significant. On the other hand, there is always going to be political wrangling when people get together. Or at least what is perceived as being such.

Never mind. Clearly you are right and the people my husband works for and with (who are by the way directly studying climate and weather patterns) and have PhDs in various related fields of study are wrong.

Whatever.

Some people are so invested in the idea of Global Warming and catastrophic climate changes that they can't see beyond the ends of their own noses for fear of being wrong. You might well be among that crowd - I don't know. But it seems that way to me. Go ahead and buy the spin. But are you old enough to have been a child when they told us all to watch out for Global Cooling and prepare for the next ice age? If you aren't, I am. That never happened either. Along with acid rain destroying the planet and a host of other liberal pet-causes that turned out to be junk science.

Have a nice day.

Edited to add:

For everyone else. I am not saying that all scientific fields are equal in their knowledge of climate change. Nor am I implying that by definition all rocket scientists know everything about climatology. My point was that my husband works for a group that is a joint endeavor between a couple of governmental departments and more than one major university. Climate is one of the things that this group is working on studying. The scientists are not all Americans, either. They come from around the world. These people work in complementary disciplines, in a relatively small environment and discussions of Al Gore's Nobel Joke Peace Prize and An Inconvenient Truth are common. Further, they all work in the so-called "scientific community" and according to these scientists, their experiences and opinions is that there is not a consensus of opinion. That this is part of the "scare mongering" and hype that surrounds this issue.

And if Pravoslavbob wants to get his knickers in a knot because not all of the scientists my husband works with are climatologists ... Well news flash. MOST of the members of the IPCC (who also received the Nobel Prize) are not climatologists either.

But are you old enough to have been a child when they told us all to watch out for Global Cooling and prepare for the next ice age? If you aren't, I am. That never happened either.

It is true that the earth appears to be "due" for another ice age. Maybe this would help cancel out global warming.

Quote

.... Along with acid rain destroying the planet and a host of other liberal pet-causes that turned out to be junk science.

Well, I would not say that acid rain is going to destroy the planet, buts its negative effects on lakes that are not buffered by alkaline bedrock (eg lakes on the precambrian shield), and its negative effects on vegetation cannot be disputed. If you and your husband truly believe that this is "junk science", then I don't know what to say. You might want to check with him on this one.

Quote

For everyone else. I am not saying that all scientific fields are equal in their knowledge of climate change. Nor am I implying that by definition all rocket scientists know everything about climatology.

Fair enough. I may well be doing too much "barking up the wrong tree" on this issue.

But you know, why take my word for what's happening in the field of climate change. Sure there is debate about it. In any scientific endeavour, there should be debate. That's healthy. There's just not the kind of debate that some would have us believe is there. The vast majority of scientists working on the climate issue agree that global warming is happening.

"National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"."

"Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol."

Thanks Carole. I am not surprised by what you have shared with us. I just read an article today stating a magma hot spot may be the cause of the ice melting rapidly in Greenland

Well, this just accounts for a very small part of the Greenland ice cap. It doesn't change the fact that the rest of the Greenland cap, and the Canadian and Russian arctic ice is melting at such an incredible rate as well. Of course, if that were also due to volcanic activity, then global warming might be the last of our worries. As indeed, it might be anyway.

"The threat of climate change caused by human activity could turn out to be a minor problem by comparison with a scarcely acknowledged natural hazard.

Geologists say there is a real risk that sooner or later a supervolcano will erupt with devastating force, sending temperatures plunging on a hemispheric or even global scale."

The Earth has been going through climate changes since its beginnings. We happen to be in a warming trend but this will change into a cooling trend and then back again. There is nothing unusual as to what is happening now. Didnt the American Indians migrate from Asia over the land ice bridge along the Aleutian Islands? So, where did this ice go after they settled in this new land. Where these Indians driving SUV's ?

I've read that at best, the human impact on environmental climate change is less than 5% and the balance is nature herself. The Sun (sun spots, etc.), oceans |(releases more poinsonous gases via underwater vents than any human race could ever do) , Forests (rotting undergrowth worldwide releases carbon dioxide and other carbon based oxides) and volcanic activity throughout the globe account for almost all of the earth's climate change. The moom is moving away from the earth approximately 2 inches per year. It is estimated that eventually our earth will slow down its rotation because of this. Do we invest in stopping the moon from leaving its orbit?

Its this less than 5% that we are asking all the nations of the world to invest heavily and in some cases bankrupting some economies simply to satisfy a political adjenda.

This is not to say that as responsible custodians of God's earth we shouldnt be doing what we can to make our environment more pleasant than it is. Recycling has become a norm today and thats good. But dont think that all our efforts are going to make a drastic change in what the earth herself wants to do.

Personally, I dont fear what is going on now. What I do fear however, are these self appointed, Al Gore included, experts who want to subjugate our country just to please some half witted climatologist who is predicting the end of the world around the next corner.

Whatever one thinks of global warming, poluting the world is not a "right" which some countries have over others.

Is anyone here actually making such a claim?

The point that people are tyring to make is that pollution (i.e. man) does not correlate substantially, statistically or in reality, to global temperature change. And many scientists have also pointed out that out. However, that does not mean I support putting out more toxins into the air. I want cleaner air, especially when I visit my brother in Los Angeles since I can hardly breathe there! If there are countries out there pressing for such a "right" that would be India and China and other industrially developing nations who overtake the U.S. in terms of pollution produced.

The point that people are tyring to make is that pollution (i.e. man) does not correlate substantially, statistically or in reality, to global temperature change. And many scientists have also pointed out that out. However, that does not mean I support putting out more toxins into the air. I want cleaner air, especially when I visit my brother in Laos Angeles since I can hardly breathe there! If there are countries out there pressing for such a "right" that would be India and China and other industrially developing nations who overtake the U.S. in terms of pollution produced.

I don't think any of us who posted believe it is our God-given right to pollute the environment. My family doesn't own a gas-guzzling SUV or minivan. We chose to live in a community which is close to a downtown that allows me to walk to the grocery store, post office, drug store, etc. to avoid driving as much as possible. If we had enough $$ we would invest in solar panels for our roof so we could experience the joy of seeing the meter spin the other way because we would be putting power on the grid. Personally, I would like to see more funding put toward developing alternative fuel sources and furthing the efficiency and reducing the price of solar technology. Not only we would be cleaning up our world but our energy dollars would stop funding Muslim fundamentalists. However, I don't like to see newspaper articles full of half truths and propaganda in reference to climate change. As I said before, the global warming theory has reached the level of hysteria and Carole is right, it does remind me of the fear-mongers who warned us about imminent ice age not too long ago.

INot only we would be cleaning up our world but our energy dollars would stop funding Muslim fundamentalists.

The vast majority (80% +)of our oil comes from Canada and Venezuela and unless there is something contrary, these countries (at least not yet) are not funding terrorist training camps or jihadist propaganda.

Whatever one thinks of global warming, poluting the world is not a "right" which some countries have over others.

If you read my post thoroughly you will see that I also stated that we are stewards of God's creation. And as such have the responsibility to take care of our surroundings. Who wants polluted streams, and air? Who has done MORE TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIORONMENT THAN THE UNITED STATES? Republicans and Democrats dont want dirty waters or air or anything else at least not in the last forty or so years. I spent a great deal of my life as an Enviromental Engineer in the building and installation control systems for wastewater and potable water plants. So, I do know a little about what pollution can do if gone unchecked. We all know the horror stories of rivers literally catching fire, and the rivers dying for lack of oxygen. Well, the U.S. has accomplished tremendous strides in vertually illiminating this hazard from our shores. What should be the cause for alarm is now the developing countries who are now realizing the potential of wealth and are going full speed towards development without regard for environmental impact. So, it is here, the third world, in which we should be concentrating our efforts to convert the unconverted to become more ecologically minded in their planning.